Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

mickydoomsux · 24-05-2014 06:32PM

RobertKK wrote: »

links

http://www.smh.com.au/national/named-the-australian-paedophile-jailed-for-40-years-20130630-2p5da.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2006/jun/24/children.ukcrime

Sick drivel? I posted facts.

/RobertKK sees two trees

"How did I end up in this forest?"

Bubbaclaus · 24-05-2014 06:32PM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is easy scare you, if not supporting SSM scares you.

Not believing in equal rights for any part of society scares me. If you didn't believe that jews should have equal rights I would be just as scared by you.

Are their any other sections of society that you believe shouldn't receive equal rights? What's your opinion on black people, for example? Are they entitled to equal rights?

Bubbaclaus · 24-05-2014 06:33PM

RobertKK wrote: »

A referendum is asking the opinion of the people. My opinion is not forcing my view on anyone, it is the collective views of the nation that decide what society wants.
If a majority are against it, should we be forced to have something a majority don't want, is this the type of democracy you want?

The majority are clearly going to be for it. And its going to be a massive majority.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:33PM

Nodin wrote: »

no, you carefully selected incidents that backed up your pre-existing bias. If you had quoted facts, you would have a comparison with the number of heterosexual couples who abuse children. Hence my entirely accurate description of it as sick homophobic bile.

Wrong.

How long have we got same sex couples adopting and marrying to get meaningful facts?

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:34PM

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The majority are clearly going to be for it. And its going to be a massive majority.

Like the children's referendum where 80% plus were for it said the polls.

Oh yeah that barely passed.

Corkfeen · 24-05-2014 06:35PM

RobertKK wrote: »

How can you say that when you refuse to accept I am allowed my own views.
I don't have to hold your views, I never called anyone a name for not holding my views, yet I have been called names for holding views of other people.

Lets be straight here on who is forcing views on who.

You've claimed your views on the cervical cancer vaccine to be factual. You ignored the ton of evidence that proves you to be either lying or ignorant.

I really don't expect you to change your opinion. However showing your opinion to be that of an imbecile who selects anecdotal pieces or selectively quotes studies while ignoring the actual conclusions is logical. Any names you have been called have been perfectly accurate. I view your opinion to be entirely homophobic and I think most do. The very fact you've brought paedophilia into the discussion is proof enough.

You are free to hold these opinions but we are allowed to show you up for it. You have opinions, your opinions do not deserve a special protection from criticism. Voting to restrict the rights of a group for no reason besides homophobia is horrible and I have no respect for you as a result.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:35PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

/RobertKK sees two trees

"How did I end up in this forest?"

These were the cases that were referred to earlier in this topic by another poster. Do you want more?

Nodin · 24-05-2014 06:35PM

RobertKK wrote: »

A referendum is asking the opinion of the people. My opinion is not forcing my view on anyone, it is the collective views of the nation that decide what society wants.
If a majority are against it, should we be forced to have something a majority don't want, is this the type of democracy you want?

Again, its not asking an opinion, its asking permission to change the law. Refusal prevents gay couples who wish to marry from doing so and thus is forcing your morality on them.

You seem to be confusing democracy and mob rule, though in fairness you're far from the only one round here who does so.
http://www.democracyweb.org/majority/principles.php

Wrong.

How long have we got same sex couples adopting and marrying to get meaningful facts?

I've no idea what that's supposed to mean/ask.

mickydoomsux · 24-05-2014 06:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

These were the cases that were referred to earlier in this topic by another poster. Do you want more?

You're grand, I could do without seeing all of your bookmarked websites.

PopePalpatine · 24-05-2014 06:38PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I believe we should speak and treat others with common courtesy and not call other names, as a person who was bullied as a child, I know the effects this can have on a person.

Do those names include "f*ggot", "queer", "deviant" and "whore"?

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:39PM

Corkfeen wrote: »

You've claimed your views on the cervical cancer vaccine to be factual. You ignored the ton of evidence that proves you to be either lying or ignorant.

I really don't expect you to change your opinion. However showing your opinion to be that of an imbecile who selects anecdotal pieces or selectively quotes studies while ignoring the actual conclusions is logical. Any names you have been called have been perfectly accurate. I view your opinion to be entirely homophobic and I think most do. The very fact you've brought paedophilia into the discussion is proof enough.

You are free to hold these opinions but we are allowed to show you up for it. You have opinions, your opinions do not deserve a special protection from criticism.

I said there has been issues with it, which is fact.

People bring paedophilia into discussions when religion is brought up, I argue that one should not brand all by the bad and I fear some will brand gay couples as has been done to priests, as I believe that child abusers will abuse gay marriage just like they did with the priesthood.
The fear of being called some name if concerns are raised will aid child abusers as happened elsewhere.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:42PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Do those names include "f*ggot", "queer", "deviant" and "whore"?

I never use those words towards anyone, everyone came into the world the same way, everyone wants to be treated with respect. People have their own names, without calling them names that cause offense and offer nothing positive.

Turtwig · 24-05-2014 06:43PM

RobertKK wrote: »

A referendum is asking the opinion of the people. My opinion is not forcing my view on anyone, it is the collective views of the nation that decide what society wants.
If a majority are against it, should we be forced to have something a majority don't want, is this the type of democracy you want?

If a majority wanted disabled people to be crucified. It doesn't mean it's necessarily the correct thing. Arguments ad populum are a waste of time. If gay marriage is to be ethically assessed arguments from popularity have to be left out.

Then again your arguments so far consist of:
Some gay people abuse children.
I'm being censored and persecuted for disagreeing with gay marriage.

The latter seems to be given the most weight. So to clarify. Nobody is a bigot for the position they adopt, they're a bigot because of WHY they adopt that position.

Corkfeen · 24-05-2014 06:44PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I said there has been issues with it, which is fact.

People bring paedophilia into discussions when religion is brought up, I argue that one should not brand all by the bad and I fear some will brand gay couples as has been done to priests, as I believe that child abusers will abuse gay marriage just like they did with the priesthood.
The fear of being called some name if concerns are raised will aid child abusers as happened elsewhere.

You lied about the seriousness about the issues. The smallpox vaccine had issues too,would you prefer smallpox?

You have no basis to prevent same sex marriage besides random anecdotal occurrences that happen in straight couples too. You used this in the politics forum before and were shown up for it. You literally wish to have any excuse to prevent it,you've used other ones in the past.

Nodin · 24-05-2014 06:44PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I said there has been issues with it, which is fact.

People bring paedophilia into discussions when religion is brought up, I argue that one should not brand all by the bad and I fear some will brand gay couples as has been done to priests, as I believe that child abusers will abuse gay marriage just like they did with the priesthood.
The fear of being called some name if concerns are raised will aid child abusers as happened elsewhere.

But your fears don't extend to those heterosexual couples who are married and who come from the demographic associated with the vast majority of abuse. Hence 'sick homophobic bile'.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:44PM

mickydoomsux wrote: »

You're grand, I could do without seeing all of your bookmarked websites.

I don't bookmark such websites.

It is not hard to google known cases.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:47PM

Turtwig wrote: »

If a majority wanted disabled people to be crucified. It doesn't mean it's necessarily the correct thing. Arguments ad populum are a waste of time. If gay marriage is to be ethically assessed arguments from popularity have to be left out.

Then again your arguments so far consist of:
Some gay people abuse children.
I'm being censored and persecuted for disagreeing with gay marriage.

The latter seems to be given the most weight. So to clarify. Nobody is a bigot for the position they adopt, they're a bigot because of WHY they adopt that position.

I did not say gay people abuse children.

I wish you would stop abusing me with such lies.

If people want to post lies about my views then one is better off dead in here.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:52PM

Nodin wrote: »

But your fears don't extend to those heterosexual couples who are married and who come from the demographic associated with the vast majority of abuse. Hence 'sick homophobic bile'.

The nuclear/biological family is the best place for most children.

There was the case in the courts in recent months where a woman married this man who was not the father of her daughter and he abused the child.

Your sick homophobic bile is being blind to what is being said.

Corkfeen · 24-05-2014 06:55PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The nuclear/biological family is the best place for most children.

There was the case in the courts in recent months where a woman married this man who was not the father of her daughter and he abused the child.

Your sick homophobic bile is being blind to what is being said.

So you wish to make adoption and remarrying illegal? This would be the only logical stance from the angle you're coming from.

RobertKK · 24-05-2014 06:56PM

I am stopping posting as people choose to call names, post lies and act horrified that anyone would oppose SSM.
I also don't need people misrepresenting me by trying to make out I am somehow hateful.

I have wasted enough time on people who not accepting that one can oppose SSM if they don't believe it is some new form of right.

I wish all the best.

Corkfeen · 24-05-2014 06:58PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am stopping posting as people choose to call names, post lies and act horrified that anyone would oppose SSM.
I also don't need people misrepresenting me by trying to make out I am somehow hateful.

I have wasted enough time on people who not accepting that one can oppose SSM if they don't believe it is some new form of right.

I wish all the best.

Irony of accusing everyone else of misrepresenting you.....

Nodin · 24-05-2014 07:01PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The nuclear/biological family is the best place for most children.

There was the case in the courts in recent months where a woman married this man who was not the father of her daughter and he abused the child..

So divorced people should never remarry? Dear o dear.

Muise... · 24-05-2014 07:03PM

I wonder is he really gone?

The KKK took my baby away...

hotmail.com · 24-05-2014 07:07PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I am stopping posting as people choose to call names, post lies and act horrified that anyone would oppose SSM.
I also don't need people misrepresenting me by trying to make out I am somehow hateful.

I have wasted enough time on people who not accepting that one can oppose SSM if they don't believe it is some new form of right.

I wish all the best.

Your posts are disgraceful.

Turtwig · 24-05-2014 07:09PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I did not say gay people abuse children.

I wish you would stop abusing me with such lies.

If people want to post lies about my views then one is better off dead in here.

Did I say you said gay people abuse children?

No I said you said 'SOME' gay people abuse children and that was your point was it not? Gay people could use gay marriage as a cover to abuse children.

How am I abusing you? Have I made a personal comment on your character or behaviour? Nope, I haven't. Honestly, the persecution complex in your posts is tiring. It's also the thing you spend waffling on about in most posts when it comes to why gays shouldn't be entitled to equal rights. Says a lot really when the only argument you can really muster is that others are opposing your views unfairly.

Zulu · 24-05-2014 11:57PM

RobertKK wrote: »

I posted... <shameful bigotry>

Shame, shame, shame. Your god will have a field day with you in the afterlife sonny.

ben.schlomo · 26-05-2014 01:24PM

So it seems mans law won and batsh1t crazy Theresa has bowed out in the first count, im fairly surprised she got 13000+ votes though.

Bubbaclaus · 26-05-2014 05:22PM

ben.schlomo wrote: »

So it seems mans law won and batsh1t crazy Theresa has bowed out in the first count, im fairly surprised she got 13000+ votes though.

She can now go back to the kitchen, where she feels is the woman's rightful place to be.

SaveOurLyric · 26-05-2014 07:50PM

ben.schlomo wrote: »

So it seems mans law won and batsh1t crazy Theresa has bowed out in the first count, im fairly surprised she got 13000+ votes though.

But God's Law and Theresa will win yet :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10856665/Christianity-will-rise-as-sceptics-die-out-geneticist-claims.html

ben.schlomo · 26-05-2014 11:21PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

But God's Law and Theresa will win yet :

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/hay-festival/10856665/Christianity-will-rise-as-sceptics-die-out-geneticist-claims.html

Is he Enda Kennys brother?

Theresa Heaney on Vincent Browne

Comments